Norman suspended

[JohnnoMcJohnno]

Sounds nasty. Alleged headbutting, tackling someone in street. Perhaps he thought it was just another spear tackle on the field.

But Radley is injured anyway, so he'll serve out his suspension while undergoing treatment for his knee injury.

Interesting part is that the NRL thought Radley's and Norman's conduct deserved the same level of punishment.

Good point. Doesn't seem fair to me. Norman was provoked. Radley was the instigator in his incident. Might look reasonable to Joe Public I suppose.

 

[Willow]

Good point. Doesn't seem fair to me. Norman was provoked. Radley was the instigator in his incident. Might look reasonable to Joe Public I suppose.

Well lack of consistency is like hypocrisy. People don't seem to care about it as much.

 

[Gareth67]

Cannot believe the action/penalty handed out by the NRL was a true reflection of the incident itself ?- Norman came to the aid of another being attack whereas Ridley was the bully boy causing the incident , yet he comes away with the same penalty as Norman , got me beat how those latte sipping mongrels do it ?

 

[brissiedragon]

Good point. Doesn't seem fair to me. Norman was provoked. Radley was the instigator in his incident. Might look reasonable to Joe Public I suppose.

How do you know Norman was provoked?

Im sure I will be shouted down by forum administrator but the point needs to be made.
The amateur dissection and opinion reporting of video of the incident by forum members is not necessarily a true or total representation of the events of the night. Many on here have expressed their opinion based on the video.
There is also a verbal component of the incident. The only people who are privy to the actual verbal component and therefore, the entirety of the event, are those that were present on the night. We dont know what was said by whom or how the incident escalated. There had been lots of commentary on this forum and subsequent assumptions based on the video and also on who said what, to whom, the content of those words and the possibility of racial vilification, but the bottom line is none of us were there to confirm or deny.
My understanding is that Norman gave his account to the NRL and they have taken the action that they have based on all of the information that they garnered.
To suggest that there is inconsistency, bias etc by the NRL without knowing every single fact about the incident or witnessing the event or being privy to the conversation between Norman and the NRL is to make judgement in ignorance.
There are two sides to every story and we dont know either side's compete story. Simple.

 

[possm]

Sounds nasty. Alleged headbutting, tackling someone in the street. Perhaps he thought it was just another spear tackle on the field.

But Radley is injured anyway, so he'll serve out his suspension while undergoing treatment for his knee injury.

Interesting part is that the NRL thought Radley's and Norman's conduct deserved the same level of punishment.

Yes and Norman reported his incident the next day while Radley tried to hide it from his Club and the NRL for months.

So Radley should serve 2 week suspension after his doctor has declared him medically fit to return to the field. It seems the Roosters always get the rub of the green.

 

[JohnnoMcJohnno]

How do you know Norman was provoked?

Im sure I will be shouted down by forum administrator but the point needs to be made.
The amateur dissection and opinion reporting of video of the incident by forum members is not necessarily a true or total representation of the events of the night. Many on here have expressed their opinion based on the video.
There is also a verbal component of the incident. The only people who are privy to the actual verbal component and therefore, the entirety of the event, are those that were present on the night. We dont know what was said by whom or how the incident escalated. There had been lots of commentary on this forum and subsequent assumptions based on the video and also on who said what, to whom, the content of those words and the possibility of racial vilification, but the bottom line is none of us were there to confirm or deny.
My understanding is that Norman gave his account to the NRL and they have taken the action that they have based on all of the information that they garnered.
To suggest that there is inconsistency, bias etc by the NRL without knowing every single fact about the incident or witnessing the event or being privy to the conversation between Norman and the NRL is to make judgement in ignorance.
There are two sides to every story and we dont know either side's compete story. Simple.

Not interested in getting into a bush lawyer arguement. Norman said there was provocation. Radley didn't.

 

[brissiedragon]

Not interested in getting into a bush lawyer arguement. Norman said there was provocation. Radley didn't.

Did you witness the incident in person? Were you in the room for the discussion between Norman and the NRL?

If not, then you dont know either sides complete story re the incident or the decision to suspend Norman. Until you do know, your not qualified to judge.

 

[JohnnoMcJohnno]

Did you witness the incident in person? Were you in the room for the discussion between Norman and the NRL?

If not, then you dont know either sides complete story re the incident or the decision to suspend Norman. Until you do know, your not qualified to judge.

I'm not judging, I'm giving an opinion. My opinion is that the Norman incident was provoked and the Radley incident, well who knows why he did what he did but it appears to have been unprovoked.

You obviously have higher regard for the integrity of the NRL in judging these issues. All I see is an organization that does their best to cover their own arses.

 

[Willow]

How do you know Norman was provoked?

It was reported that way and even the NRL said there was an element of provocation.

"There's no doubt the initial incident involved a degree of provocation..."
- From NRL Statement
[Source]

The only problem is the NRL doesn't think that provocation is an excuse.

From the same source: "...provocation is not an excuse..."

Is there anyone here who agrees with that view?

Im sure I will be shouted down by forum administrator but the point needs to be made.

What point? There was provocation. Do you have any report that shows otherwise?

And lol @ forum administrator shouting you down. Wrong on both counts: Firstly, no one has 'shouted you down' - it was just a disagreement and that happens a lot, and btw a disagreement I had all but forgotten until now. And secondly, I was posting as a forum member, not admin. It would be really helpful if you could remember that.

There are two sides to every story and we dont know either side's compete story. Simple.

Very true. The other side ran away after they realised they had a fight on their hands. The police couldn't find them to get their side of the story.

Why do you think they haven't come forward?

 

[brissiedragon]

It was reported that way and even the NRL said there was an element of provocation.

"There's no doubt the initial incident involved a degree of provocation..."
- From NRL Statement
[Source]

The only problem is the NRL doesn't think that provocation is an excuse.

From the same source: "...provocation is not an excuse..."

Is there anyone here who agrees with that view?
What point? There was provocation. Do you have any report that shows otherwise?

Were you there? How do you know that there was provocation or who started the incident?

The other side ran away after they realised they had a fight on their hands. The police couldn't find them to get their side of the story.

How do you know they ran away and that running away was because they had a fight on their hands? Do you have access to audio of the incident?

Why do you think they haven't come forward?

Is there anyone here who agrees with that view?
What point? There was provocation. Do you have any report that shows otherwise?

Were you there? How do you know that there was provocation or who started the incident?

The other side ran away after they realised they had a fight on their hands. The police couldn't find them to get their side of the story.

How do you know they ran away and that running away was because they had a fight on their hands? Do you have access to audio of the incident?

Why do you think they haven't come forward?[/QUOTE]


I dont know, do you know any of them so that you can find out their side of the story? That would be a balanced way to understand both sides of the story, dont you think?

You werent there at the incident so therefore you dont know the details of instigation, action and post incident. You werent in the NRL meeting either. Therefore, any commentary is pure conjecture. Your initial dissection and commentary on the video was definitive in your view and your comments then and to date, in my opinion are wrong because there is a level of ignorance involved. My position is not that hard to comprehend. I reserve my judgement on Norman and the other people involved simply because I wasnt there and I dont have all the facts. I assume that the NRL are privy to a lot more details than you and I after having interviewed Norman. I dont know whether Normans testimony to the NRL was factual or not but if the NRL choose to take action based on the information at hand then it would be foolish to judge that decision unless we have the same information that they do.

Hoping my position doesn't confuse you too much.

 

[ALSGI]

brissiedragon,

Spot on with both posts.

 

[betcats]

Provocation is not an excuse for violence. If they were defending themselves from a physical attack that is one thing, but if they just got called some names and responded with punches I am not surprised Norman got suspended.

 

[TruSaint]

Provocation is not an excuse for violence. If they were defending themselves from a physical attack that is one thing, but if they just got called some names and responded with punches I am not surprised Norman got suspended.

Yeah, agree here.

Can't talk about the Norman case as the facts are debatable. In general though, this should be the standard imposed by sporting authorities.

Its not easy to walk away at times, I get it.

 

[Willow]

Were you there? How do you know that there was provocation or who started the incident?

The NRL used the word provocation. They accept that there was provocation.

You seem to disagree with that part of their statement.

Norman and Segeyaro said they were provoked. Are you saying they are liars?

That question is pretty important, because they were there. So please, tell us if you think they were lying, and if so, provide us your reasons for holding that view. Thanks in advance.

How do you know they ran away and that running away was because they had a fight on their hands? Do you have access to audio of the incident?

I'm sorry, they must have walked away.

What we do know is that none of those four blokes have come forward. We also know that the police haven't charged Norman of Segeyaro with anything.

I dont know, do you know any of them so that you can find out their side of the story? That would be a balanced way to understand both sides of the story, dont you think?

Police went looking for them, that's what they said. They shot through by then. Bit hard to get the other side of the story when they won't come forward.

But we do have reports and statements as well as video, which you seem to have rejected.

You werent there at the incident so therefore you dont know the details of instigation, action and post incident. You werent in the NRL meeting either. Therefore, any commentary is pure conjecture. Your initial dissection and commentary on the video was definitive in your view and your comments then and to date, in my opinion are wrong because there is a level of ignorance involved. My position is not that hard to comprehend. I reserve my judgement on Norman and the other people involved simply because I wasnt there and I dont have all the facts. I assume that the NRL are privy to a lot more details than you and I after having interviewed Norman. I dont know whether Normans testimony to the NRL was factual or not but if the NRL choose to take action based on the information at hand then it would be foolish to judge that decision unless we have the same information that they do.

And yet, the NRL reduced the punishment. That is, changed their stance a little based on an appeal. They seem happy enough to review matters based on new arguments and facts.

At no point have I claimed that I was there, my view is based on the reports and statements.

Furthermore I'm happy to accept that you may have a different interpretation, for whatever reason.

But from what I can see, you just want others to shut up because they weren't there. This seems to be the crux of your argument. Well sorry champ, but people aren't going to shut up just because you tell them.

Hoping my position doesn't confuse you too much.

No chance of that mate.

 

[Willow]

Provocation is not an excuse for violence. If they were defending themselves from a physical attack that is one thing, but if they just got called some names and responded with punches I am not surprised Norman got suspended.

Yeah, agree here.

Can't talk about the Norman case as the facts are debatable. In general though, this should be the standard imposed by sporting authorities.

Its not easy to walk away at times, I get it.

I think the discussion went this way over the question of consistency. In this case, a player who fights without any provocation is given the same punishment as a player who fights back after being provoked.

 

[brissiedragon]

You can pick apart my post and throw your responses back at me as much as you want. I dont really give a toss. You obviously dont have the intelligence to understand my position so I wont bother to attempt to educate you.
I guess the mark of your character is your accusation that I have told people to shut up when clearly I havent. Or maybe I can use your response style - where is your evidence that I have told people to shut up?

Anyway, end of responses from me to you. Consider yourself ghosted.

 

[thebigredv]

Luckily the NRL can ban any of our players for whatever reason they want and it makes no difference. We have zero rep quality players so it doesn't really bother me at this time from a purely Dragons fan point of view.

Watching some of the excellent rugby league tonight again reminds me how far off the pace we are going to be.

 

[Banjo2014]

C

How do you know Norman was provoked?

Im sure I will be shouted down by forum administrator but the point needs to be made.
The amateur dissection and opinion reporting of video of the incident by forum members is not necessarily a true or total representation of the events of the night. Many on here have expressed their opinion based on the video.
There is also a verbal component of the incident. The only people who are privy to the actual verbal component and therefore, the entirety of the event, are those that were present on the night. We dont know what was said by whom or how the incident escalated. There had been lots of commentary on this forum and subsequent assumptions based on the video and also on who said what, to whom, the content of those words and the possibility of racial vilification, but the bottom line is none of us were there to confirm or deny.
My understanding is that Norman gave his account to the NRL and they have taken the action that they have based on all of the information that they garnered.
To suggest that there is inconsistency, bias etc by the NRL without knowing every single fact about the incident or witnessing the event or being privy to the conversation between Norman and the NRL is to make judgement in ignorance.
There are two sides to every story and we dont know either side's compete story. Simple.

 

[Banjo2014]

I think the discussion went this way over the question of consistency. In this case, a player who fights without any provocation is given the same punishment as a player who fights back after being provoked.

 

[Willow]

You can pick apart my post and throw your responses back at me as much as you want.

Well with respect you have been doing that yourself, or trying to. I noticed you couldn't work out how to use the quote function to do it effectively. I'm happy to show you how to do this if you want, it's quite easy.

I dont really give a toss.

lol. Yeah that's obvious. Also obvious you've avoided my questions and sidestepped the fact that the NRL said Norman was provoked. You didn't check your facts on that one, but chose to get stuck into others anyway.

You obviously dont have the intelligence to understand my position so I wont bother to attempt to educate you.

Yeah, I already got the impression that you consider yourself to be far more intelligent. Well spoken articulate, great debater etc... Thanks for taking the time to 'educate' me.

I guess the mark of your character is your accusation that I have told people to shut up when clearly I havent.

I disagree. Why are you getting personal about it?

Or maybe I can use your response style - where is your evidence that I have told people to shut up?

Your whole argument is disingenuous. The 'you weren't there' comeback and telling others that they know nothing has only been aimed at those who are defending Norman's position. Those who think Norman is guilty of something seem to have been spared your lectures and put downs.

You should just come out and say what you're really thinking. It appears that this whole 'street fight' episode has triggered a few emotions.

Anyway, end of responses from me to you. Consider yourself ghosted.

Cool. I'll just keep on with my view without having to justify it. Y'know, the one where Norman and Segeyaro were provoked and they were defending themselves, and the NRL were wrong to punish Norman.

Have a beaut day.